THE CONJUNCTION. 557 



never have attained their ascendency in the oratorical, historical, and di- 

 dactic prose style without their abundant and most expressive assortment 

 of conjunctions. 



We distinguish two principal relations in connecting together words or 

 sentences — the co-ordinative and the adversative. Languages of primitive 

 culture possess as many of the latter as of the former, because they feel the 

 same need for them. Klamath can enumerate but very few conjunctions con- 

 necting co-ordinate parts of speech, either nouns or verbs, to each other: 

 amka, pen, tchi'sh, tchkash; but the number of conjunctions co-ordinating 

 co-ordinate and adversative sentences is much larger. Being a synthetic lan- 

 guage, Klamath expresses many causal, temporal, and modal relations by 

 participles and verbals which we would express analytically by distinct 

 sentences introdijced by a conjunction. This is not a deficiency in the 

 language, and moreover it is largely counterbalanced by a wealth of con- 

 junctions introducing subordinate clauses to the principal sentence. 



All modes are expressed by conjunctions, as ak, am, ya, and even the 

 -at, -t of the conditional mode is the conjunction at, at the time being, agglu- 

 tinated to the verbal stem. Our and has no exact equivalent, but is ren- 

 dered by also or again; our then (temporal) by afterward, subsequently, the 

 particle tchui corresponding accurately to the Vvench. puis, from Latin postea. 

 No Klamath term corresponds exactly to our that, though, although, but the 

 language has two distinct "oral particles" to render our as reported, as I 

 hear or heard, as they say or allege. 



All true conjunctions are formed from pronominal roots, and though 

 they do not reduplicate distributively, the majority of them appears under 

 two forms — the simple conjunction and the conjunction with suffix -sh (-s, 

 -ds, -dsh, -tch, -ts). This suffixed sound is nothing else but a remnant of 

 the conjunction tchi'sh, tsis also, too. iSo we have Liluts for Lilu tchisli, 

 Lilu also; nuds or nil tchish / also; nats for nat tchish we also 29, 18; ha i 

 ki-uapkats also if you should tell lies ; tche'ks for tche'k tchish and then. In 

 most instances the additional idea of also, too, and disappears, and what 

 i-emains of it is that this enlarged particle points to a closer connection with 

 the foregoing than does the conjunction without the suffix. This suffix also 

 appears with other particles. 



